Documents had been translated from the Japanese, for the purposes of the litigation. The claimant refused disclosure, arguing that they were privileged, and protected from disclosure, having been prepared for the court proceedings.
Held: The court ordered disclosure. Whatever level of privilege attached to the original applied also to the translation, and no additional confidentiality was created. In this case there was no element of selection from various materials to create a confidence under Lyell v Kennedy exception. That exception included documents themselves protected from disclosure.
Phillips MR, Parker LJ, Mustill L
Times 15-Aug-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1152, [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 517, [2002] 4 All ER 68, [2002] CP Rep 3, [2001] CPLR 462, [2001] 2 LLR 517, [2002] 1 WLR 479
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lyell v Kennedy (No 3) CA 8-Apr-1884
The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to land as purchaser from the heir-at-law of an intestate, who had died many years earlier. The land was in the possession of the defendant, and the central issue in the action was whether the defendant’s . .
Cited – Anderson v Bank of British Columbia CA 1876
Litigation was threatened against an English bank concerning the conduct of an account kept at the branch of the bank in Oregon. The English bank’s London manager thought it necessary to ascertain the full facts and cabled the branch manager in . .
Cited – The Palermo 1883
A copy of an original document which is not itself privileged is privileged only if (a) the copy came into existence for the purpose of litigation, and (b) the original document is not and has not at any time been in the control of the party . .
Cited – Ventouris v Mountain CA 1991
It is in the interests of the state which provides the court system and its judges at taxpayers’ expense that legal advisers should be able to encourage strong cases and discourage weak cases. ‘It is the protection of confidential communications . .
Cited – Watson v Cammell Laird and Co Ltd CA 1959
Referring to the case of Chadwick v. Bowman: ‘…. the essential fact was that certain letters which the defendant had received, and copies of letters which he had written, had been at some stage destroyed by the defendant, and in order to replace . .
Cited – Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari CA 1990
A document created with a view to its being submitted to solicitors for advice does not, despite its purpose, attract privilege, even though the ‘pre-existing documents, and even documents on public records, have been selected by a solicitor for the . .
Cited – Wheeler v Le Marchant CA 1881
Advice was given to the defendant trustee of the will of a Mr Brett in the course of its administration in the Chancery Division; for the purpose of that advice information was sought from both the former and the current estate-agent and surveyor. . .
Cited – Chadwick v Bowman CA 1886
The true question as to whether translations of a privileged document themselves attract privilege, is whether the translations ‘really’ came into existence for the purposes of the action. ‘I think that danger would follow if the privilege against . .
Cited by:
Cited – Imerman v Tchenguiz and Others QBD 16-Nov-2009
The claimant sought an ‘unless order’, saying that the defendant had failed to comply with orders for delivery up of documents. Though the order had been agreed, the defendants said that the documents might be needed for an appeal. The claimants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Legal Professions
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.147629